ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 23
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
23-1A. Sovereign immunity
(Chapter 23—Page 444)
The United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he issuance of the Bonds was a commercial activity under
the [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)], and the rescheduling of the maturity dates on those in-
23-2A. Sovereign immunity
(Chapter 23—Page 444)
The court denied the motion to dismiss. The doctrine of sovereign immunity immunizes foreign nations
B-98 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 23
ketplace.” Here, the defendant undertook a guarantee that allowed it to “step into the shoes” of a “pri-
vate player,” the German construction firm, to insure that the tent project was completed. To be “based
23-3A. Import controls
(Chapter 23—Pages 447–448)
The court affirmed the U.S. Customs Service’s ruling, and DaimlerChrysler appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision. The appellate
23-4A. Sovereign immunity
(Chapter 23—Page 444)
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a U.S. court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a dis-
23-5A. Sovereign immunity
(Chapter 23—Page 444)
The court held that because Ente Nazionale Idrocaburi was an “agent or instrumentality” of the Italian
government, Nuovo was a “foreign state” entitled to sovereign immunity—unless an exception applied.
23-6A. Import control
(Chapter 23—Page 450)
The court explained that “[t]he purpose of the ordinary course of trade provision is to prevent dumping
[calculations] from being based on sales which are not representative.” The ITA “must evaluate not just
23-7A. Act of state doctrine
(Chapter 23—Pages 443–444)
The United States Supreme Court held that the action was not barred by the act of state doctrine. The
B-100 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 23
23-8A. Sovereign immunity
(Chapter 23—Page 444)
The court held that because Ente Nazionale Idrocaburi was an “agent or instrumentality” of the Italian
government, Nuovo was a “foreign state” entitled to sovereign immunity—unless an exception applied.
23-9A. Dumping
(Chapter 23—Page 450)
The court remanded the case for recalculation of the dumping duty margins using either the Thai pro-
ducers’ weight-based allocation methodologies or a non-output price-based cost allocation methodolo-
23-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated that “[t]hree reasons persuade us:
(1) the parties’ undertaking is truly international in character, (2) all parties other than Riley * * * are
British, and (3) virtually all activities giving rise to the suggested claims occurred in England.”
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 23 B-101
Against the court’s decision, it might be argued that Riley would lose his rights under U.S. law.
The court acknowledged that “a showing of inconvenience so serious as to foreclose a remedy, perhaps
coupled with a showing of bad faith, overreaching or lack of notice, would be sufficient to defeat a con-
tractual forum selection clause.” But these elements did not exist in this case. In any event, the court
said, “Riley will not be deprived of his day in court. He may, though, have to structure his case different-
ly than if proceeding in [U.S.] federal district court.”
2. As the appellate court stated, “The fact that an international transaction may be subject
to laws and remedies different or less favorable than those of the United States is not a valid basis to
3. Yes, and in fact, as listed above, that was one of the factors that weighed in favor of the